[Debian-med-packaging] Bug#807580: Bug#807580: More licensing issues (Was: BLAT license)

[Michael Lawrence]

I think "illegal" is a pretty strong word. The changes only clarified the
legality. It was never illegal.

I went ahead and made the change in the release branch. Expect it as
version 1.20.3.

Michael


On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 1:27 PM, Andreas Tille <andreas at an3as.eu> wrote:

> Hi Michael,
>
> ich "backporting" means simply changing some license text I'd consider
> it worth doing.  Consider Ubuntu is deriving from current Debian before
> next month and will end up with an illegal r-bioc-rtracklayer package.
>
> If you did some heavy code changes I could understand your hesitation.
>
> Kind regards
>
>        Andreas.
>
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 01:16:42PM -0700, Michael Lawrence wrote:
> > The license stuff was never changed in the release branch of
> Bioconductor.
> > That all happened in the devel branch. Next month, with the Bioc release,
> > the devel branch becomes the release branch, so I'm not sure it's worth
> > back porting right now.
> >
> > Michael
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 1:09 PM, Andreas Tille <andreas at an3as.eu> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > I've realised that there is a new upstream release of rtracklayer
> > > (1.30.2) but the files in question have not yet changed.  I realised
> > > that the description says:
> > >
> > > ExtraLicenses: The files in the 'src/ucsc' directory are licensed for
> > >         all use by Jim Kent, in a manner compatible with the Artistic
> > >         2.0 license.
> > >
> > > It seems that the issue is settled but are there any other resources
> for
> > > this statement than one of Jim's mails?  I would like to refer to some
> > > authoritative statement to close the bug report in the Debian BTS.
> > >
> > > Kind regards
> > >
> > >        Andreas.
> > >
> > > On Thu, Dec 24, 2015 at 11:55:17PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> > > > Le Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 08:37:36AM -0800, Jim Kent a écrit :
> > > > > Actually though, looking at Mozilla Public LIcense, the only
> > > differences I
> > > > > don't care much about,  so if it makes it easier, I can release it
> > > under
> > > > > that as well.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks Jim, I am sure it is helpful, not only for Bioconductor, but
> also
> > > for
> > > > any other project which would like to pick up the same files form the
> > > UCSC
> > > > browser sources.  Designed years after the CDDL, the MPL 2.0 was
> > > carefully
> > > > worded to avoid ambiguities and incompatibilities (not just with the
> GNU
> > > GPL,
> > > > but also with the Apache License).
> > > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Charles Plessy
> > > > Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Debian-med-packaging mailing list
> > > > Debian-med-packaging at lists.alioth.debian.org
> > > >
> > >
> http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-med-packaging
> > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > http://fam-tille.de
> > >
>
> --
> http://fam-tille.de
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/debian-med-packaging/attachments/20160314/41a16084/attachment-0001.html>